T1E1 90 incorrect frontal armor values, why would the bug report be denied?

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
1

There were multiple first part sources provided, and yet the bug report was denied, why?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eI4SSGhPB2tS
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vBjrS6j4gSWI

Here is the forum by @Etheon43 which iirc provided the same documents as the bug report (as a side note, it would be nice if we could all see the documents provided in the bug reports, I love reading them!) reposted below

The T1/M6 project spanned over a few years, often fighting against immediate obsolence upon entering service. Armor and Firepower was quickly found to be inadequate compared to the heavy and even some medium tanks at the time.

Initial M6/T1 vehicles used the armor model we see in game now, however over time as I said this was falling short of contemporary vehicles like the Tiger or Churchill heavy tanks.

The army floated several armor upgrade proposals but eventually landed on these values for the actual production tanks in 1942, not the initial pilots.

Armor:

Hull:

Front

Upper: 101.6 mm (30°)

Middle: 95.25 mm (45-60°)

Lower: 127 mm (0-45°)

Sides

Upper: 76.2 mm (0°)

Lower: 76.2 mm (0°)

Skirts: 25.4 mm (0°)

Rear

Upper: 50.8 mm (25°)

Lower: 50.8 mm (0-45°)

Тор

Front: 44.45 mm

Hatch: 38.1 mm

All: 25.4 mm

Floor

25.4 mm

Turret:

Elevating mantlet

50.8 mm (the elevating mantlet attached to the gun)

Fixated mantlet

101.6 - 250 mm

Sides

101.6 mm

Rear

101.6 mm

Тор

34.925 - 41.275 mm

This resulted in increased weight of 4.3 tons, bringing to 61.8 tons over the standard M6 57.5 tons. Below are pictures of sources, they will also be linked as well at the bottom of the post.

IMG_8074
IMG_80741320×2048 384 KB

IMG_8075

IMG_8073

Below is a photograph of the uparmored production model T1E1 90 at the War Loan Drive Parade, 9 June 1944.

IMG_8076
IMG_80761418×1073 81.8 KB

I believe these changes would still make it an acceptable 5.7, perhaps at most 6.0 vehicle. However the T1E1 90mm with 100mm of upper front plate armor would be very similar to the VK4501P or Pzr.Bflw Tiger (P) in terms of protection and firepower as well as electric transmission.

  • Royal Army Corps - Technical Situation Report No. 2, 1942
  • Royal Army Corps - Technical Situation Report No. 21, 1944
  • TM 9-721 - Heavy Tanks M6 and M6A1, 1943
  • Record of Army Ordnance Research and Development * Heavy Tanks and Assault Tanks, 1945
  • Hunnicutt: Firepower - A History of the American Heavy Tank

Archival Video containing footage of T1E1 90 as well:
Loan Parade 1944

5 Likes
2

I think this should definitely at least be passed onto the devs for consideration.

1 Like
3

Its armor is so sad as is, and I would absolutely love to play it more like the “Porsche Tiger” and at a higher BR, than just a horrible giant glass cannon at a lower BR

2 Likes
4

It says that the person that make the report closed it. Dont know why they closed it but they did.

1 Like
5

Just leave it be. It’s “ok enough” where it is and how it is; if they fix it, it’ll be put to 6 at least thus rendering the fix pointless. It’ll be another T25; another 90mm at an inappropriate BR after being “fixed.”*

*[as in, the T25 had its stabilizer removed but wasn’t put down a tick, thus remaining at an inappropriate BR; a “fixed” T1E1 90mm would be moved up, thus being PUT at an inappropriate BR; the same issue, just in opposite directions]

6

Its very pointless where it is. The M36B2 has better mobility and the same gun with better ammo, and the T1 doesn’t have enough armor to make a big difference. At least if it was fixed, it could be a tougher alternative, trading mobility and HEAT for some protection.

1 Like
7

Again, it would be moved up, thus making the protection pointless. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. At best, it would make zero difference.

8

So the guy who originally put in the bug report sent me this, it was denied because covers were not attached… which doesn’t really make sense for such old documents which might not even have one.

Warthunder-bgj3k058t0od1
Warthunder-bgj3k058t0od11080×838 45.8 KB

Also, regardless of whether it goes up in BR or not I expect Warthunder as a game to try to adhere to the historical accuracy of armor thickness when it comes to vehicles and documentation is there to prove it, as they have done with all other vehicles

3 Likes
9

I think “all” is overstating things.

10

It doesn’t. Any advantage the M36B2 might have in mobility is more than compensated by the reverse speed.

The M36B2 is still an open top which makes it extremely vulnerable to CAS and HE rounds.

11

I’m not so sure. 5.7 US already sees 6.0 to 6.7 Germany for example, very regularly since it is a very popular BR. It may as well be up-armored since it will see those same threats anyways. If I need armor at 5.7 or below, we still have the T1E1 76mm, M6, 75mm jumbo, T14… at 6.0 it could at least be back up for the very lonely M4/T26.

12

Hard disagree on the M36/M36B2, especially the M36. It has far greater acceleration, a far higher top speed, faster turret rotation… the reverse is nice, but the amount of times I have needed that is far outweighed by how often I just wish I could get to a good position faster.

HE rounds killing the M36 is fair, but a good hull shot with APHE generally ruins either the T1 or M36 anyways.
Anecdotally, the armor on the T1 has never saved me from cas. The german 50mm still easily pens its inch of top armor . Some bombs at a certain distance may kill the M36 where it wouldn’t kill the T1, but the T1 has weak spots on its sides as thin as an inch, to even a half inch, that overpressure will find its way into and nuke the crew anyways. You can even do this with 128mm HE from the Sturer Emil.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

13

Except you never said M36, you added the M36 to the conversation just now.

That entire paragraph (except for the part on turret rotation) is explicitly just for the M36. It is not about the M36B2 which has a far weaker engine and worse top speed, and was the tank you were comparing the T1E1 (90) to. So it is meaningless to what I stated, since I was arguing against your statements on the M36B2.

That is what you think.

Do you think a plane like a Bf 109 is going to try to destroy the T1E1 (90) with its guns? No, it won’t, because those guns literally can’t do anything except spot for other team mates.

But an M36 would be shredded.

The very fact you die to either bombs or anti-tank cannons rather than simply 20 mm or MGs is proof that the T1E1 is protecting you against CAS when an M36 would just die.

In short, you need to think less like “oh I survived this CAS attack because I’m better armored”, and more that you won’t get attacked by planes that can’t take you out in the first place.

14

I’m not trying to “win” some internet argument like you seem to think, but everything BUT the huge increase to top speed still applies to the B2.

Being killed by a 109? Fair, but what serious player uses a 109 for CAS and not the many planes much better at that job? Thats assuming your average pilot gets past the .50 cal anyways.

In the end, we have the documents/proof showing the T1E1 90mm having increased armor, so its a matter of when, and IF gaijin decides it gets moved up. I really don’t get why its such a crime for the already amazing and STACKED 5.7 US lineup to potentially lose a tank, and instead give the M4/T26 some backup. And that’s if the increase in armor results in being moved up.

15

It doesn’t. The B2 has a 410 hp engine instead of 500 hp on the M36. It also weights slightly more.

So in the end it absolutely does not have the acceleration advantage that the M36 does. It has roughly the same HP/ton as the T1E1 (90) except the T1E1 gets a better transmission.

A lot of people bring fighters like the Bf 109 to attack other enemy fighters.

16

I accidentlly posted the wrong link in the OP but edited it, this was the bug report that got denied, saying the M6A1 has the wrong armor, both made by the same person. However, this also applied to the T1E1, and the bug creator closed the report after being discouraged by the closing of the M6A1 bug report :/

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vBjrS6j4gSWI

17

It looks like that report was closed by the person who created it.
image
image

That report was passed:

This is a known issue that has previously been reported from the Old Forum. I have attached the additional source materials you’ve provided to that report.

image
image1004×124 19.6 KB

1 Like
18

My bad, this was the report that got denied by the moderator last month

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/81Sh7uwtEz6Q